Chapman’s death.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

I recognize your concerns about choking and the lack of signs of a struggle. However, there appears to be a similar lack of signs for a blow strong enough to render her non-responsive as well. No major bruising consistent with such a blow is reported, although evidence of her fight a few days earlier are mentioned and recognized as such, so we know bruising was examined and considered closely.

Choking/strangulation, of course, would prevent her from crying out, so the lack of any yells or sounds with regards to a struggle could easily be accounted for. Annie Chapman was in poor health, and had been up since the day before, both would suggest she was not physically imposing (it sounds like she lost the fight over the soap as well, also suggesting she was not a particularly strong or skilled fighter). JtR is generally thought to be the opposite, in so much as he is suggested to be someone with more than average stength. If so, he may very well have been able to physically control her while choking her. I would, however, have expected her to defend herself in some ways, and would not be surprised if JtR ended up with scratches, either on his arms and hands, or his face. Unfortunately, no report of any examination of her fingernails seems to have been made, suggesting they may not have been examined to see if there might indeed have been any skin lodged under them. (Random thought here - if Eddowes, though, had scratched JtR on the face, that may have angered him resulting in the first instance of facial mutilations - but I digress into speculation here).

Scuff marks and such of her feet shifting about could very well have been obscured, or non-existance pending on whether her feet were on the paving stones at the bottom of the stairs when the attack happened; or they may simply have been obscured by JtRs subsequent movement and activities,, or even those of the police and doctors when they examined the scene. Based upon the minimal crime scene examination in the case of Nichols, for example, there does not seem to have been a standard protocol with regards to securing the area first. Learning to preserve the crime scene prior to beginning the search for evidence was something that police developed over time since then.

Anyway, choking/strangulation would also mean she was in his grip the whole time, making it easier to then lay her down as she was found, while a blow strong enough to render her unresponsive, is likely to knock her away from him, falling out of control. Once placed where she was, though, it appears he then cuts her throat, and given her position, and the steps, and fence, he probably is somewhere around her waist and legs. Either in lowering her down next to the fence, or having to lean over her to cut her throat (as the blood spray on the fence indicates that was her position at the time of that event), both offer an opportunity for his shoulder to bump the fence producing Cadosche's noise (and putting JtR in a position and activity that makes it quite possible he remained unaware of Cadoshe's return - he wasn't being risky, he was being unattentive).

I'm not saying the above must be what happened, though, only presenting it as something to consider. I suspect you already have, so I'm interested in hearing what aspects of that you have concluded warrant going with the knock out punch type of initial attack, because I see that as having some indication of "evidence of absence" (bruises were examined and none found consistent with such a blow), while the lack of evidence for a struggle strikes me more as "absence of evidence" (doesn't look like there was an examination of her fingernails, doesn't seem to have been a great policy of "secure before search", etc). While the former (evidence of absence) seems to go against a blow, the latter (absence of evidence) leaves open strangulation even with a struggle.

- Jeff

Okay I've temporarily forgotten how to multiquote, so this will go top to bottom

1: I'm not sure how far bruising would have advanced, given she was exsanguinated moments later. Also if she was strangled after being hit that would affect it too. So I genuinely don't know what that bruising would look like. Her face was swollen, there was an abrasion on the right side, there were bruises of various ages. One was clearly from the fight, the bruise on the temple. But there was bruising on the jaw. Not having seen it... yeah.

2: Choking does not actually render someone silent. You have a better shot with that manually choking someone while pushing them up against a wall? Vocal cords rely as much on vertical movement and horizontal, so the only real barrier is the lack of air flow. Its really hard to completely cut that off. Can you quote Shakespeare? no. Its sounds a little like the Aflac duck having a stroke. It will wake no one, but if a dude is on the way back from the outhouse and is on the other side of the fence, he will hear it. It sounds a lot like someone being choked. To be fair, striking someone makes a sound too, but I think it is a sound that is easier to mistake for something else, or if it precedes a blow to the fence, it might get be experienced as one sound. Maybe.

3. I would expect Mrs. Chapman to have been easy to kill in a lot of ways, hard in others. She was five foot nothin. There are not a ton of men who could not overpower her based on that alone. Add in her fairly advanced tuberculosis, maybe syphilis...easy mark. On the other hand she was a stout woman. Moving her might have taken a bit. Also the more thick around the neck a person is, whether is be fat or muscle, the harder it is strangle them. Not impossible, but without completely shutting down the blood flow, that means fighting. And fighting next to a poorly maintained fence should have sounded like doors slamming.

4: The only part of Cadosche's testimony that seems strange to me is the "No." I believe something hit the fence, I can think of a good half dozen explanations, that doesn't bother me. But the "no" is a bit weird. The transactional stuff should have been taken care of.

5: Mostly though, this is all based on the brain. Which was a train wreck given her disease and her attack, but the swelling and edema in the grey matter itself (as opposed to in the meninges which had loads of other problems). Given the lack of cracks in the skull, or projectiles, or rare genetic conditions that made it unlikely her age at death, thats a closed brain injury. My argument is that she in fact had a massive hit to the head. Enough of one to cause very immediate, very nasty symptoms. Like vertigo. Nausea. Ataxia. Blinding pain. When she was attacked by the other woman she got hit in the temple. But if it had been hard enough to cause a closed brain injury, it would have cracked the temple. It's the thinnest part of the skull. So the question becomes, where did she get a head injury and no one notices her vomiting and falling over? At the the time of her attack. If I were a big guy, and I knew a fair bit of boxing (meaning I could aim my punch which I fully admit I cannot do) I would aim for the side of the jaw and ear. Break an ear bone, instantly incapacitate, unlikely to be discovered. And I don't think a weapon was used, because that would crack the skull. And that didn't happen. And what I fully admit is the most obvious answer, that her head hit the stairs, but stone steps would be sure to break the skull. I think her brain says it happened. I agree there's a lot to argue against it. Brain seems pretty sure. So that's whats fueling this. I've said before I have no problem with the idea of strangulation. She was partially asphyxiated to death when her windpipe was cut. I don't object to him doing it because he wanted to. I just think it's a lousy submission method when someone is like, three feet away on the other side of fence.

[DJA]

This from Dr Biggs: " Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood fron even very catastrophic injuries." (Marriott, 2013.) This may explain the lack of arterial spray in, say, the Stride case.

Do you think that's why Jack gave her the cachous?

[DJA]

Wouldn't a severe neck injury be likely to result in cardiac arrest, whereby the heart stops pumping?

What did you have in mind?

[JeffHamm]

At the moment I’m entertaining the notion that he knocked her senseless. I don’t think he choked her. I think she would have fought that. I think they her standing where her feet were in the yard, and he knocked her senseless and lowered her down behind the stairs, The other side of the stairs being blocked by the entrance to the basement. I’m sure there’s any number of issues with the notion, but trying to cut her around stairs was a solveable issue, even if it meant he had to mind his elbows for a minute.

Hi Errata,

I recognize your concerns about choking and the lack of signs of a struggle. However, there appears to be a similar lack of signs for a blow strong enough to render her non-responsive as well. No major bruising consistent with such a blow is reported, although evidence of her fight a few days earlier are mentioned and recognized as such, so we know bruising was examined and considered closely.

Choking/strangulation, of course, would prevent her from crying out, so the lack of any yells or sounds with regards to a struggle could easily be accounted for. Annie Chapman was in poor health, and had been up since the day before, both would suggest she was not physically imposing (it sounds like she lost the fight over the soap as well, also suggesting she was not a particularly strong or skilled fighter). JtR is generally thought to be the opposite, in so much as he is suggested to be someone with more than average stength. If so, he may very well have been able to physically control her while choking her. I would, however, have expected her to defend herself in some ways, and would not be surprised if JtR ended up with scratches, either on his arms and hands, or his face. Unfortunately, no report of any examination of her fingernails seems to have been made, suggesting they may not have been examined to see if there might indeed have been any skin lodged under them. (Random thought here - if Eddowes, though, had scratched JtR on the face, that may have angered him resulting in the first instance of facial mutilations - but I digress into speculation here).

Scuff marks and such of her feet shifting about could very well have been obscured, or non-existance pending on whether her feet were on the paving stones at the bottom of the stairs when the attack happened; or they may simply have been obscured by JtRs subsequent movement and activities,, or even those of the police and doctors when they examined the scene. Based upon the minimal crime scene examination in the case of Nichols, for example, there does not seem to have been a standard protocol with regards to securing the area first. Learning to preserve the crime scene prior to beginning the search for evidence was something that police developed over time since then.

Anyway, choking/strangulation would also mean she was in his grip the whole time, making it easier to then lay her down as she was found, while a blow strong enough to render her unresponsive, is likely to knock her away from him, falling out of control. Once placed where she was, though, it appears he then cuts her throat, and given her position, and the steps, and fence, he probably is somewhere around her waist and legs. Either in lowering her down next to the fence, or having to lean over her to cut her throat (as the blood spray on the fence indicates that was her position at the time of that event), both offer an opportunity for his shoulder to bump the fence producing Cadosche's noise (and putting JtR in a position and activity that makes it quite possible he remained unaware of Cadoshe's return - he wasn't being risky, he was being unattentive).

I'm not saying the above must be what happened, though, only presenting it as something to consider. I suspect you already have, so I'm interested in hearing what aspects of that you have concluded warrant going with the knock out punch type of initial attack, because I see that as having some indication of "evidence of absence" (bruises were examined and none found consistent with such a blow), while the lack of evidence for a struggle strikes me more as "absence of evidence" (doesn't look like there was an examination of her fingernails, doesn't seem to have been a great policy of "secure before search", etc). While the former (evidence of absence) seems to go against a blow, the latter (absence of evidence) leaves open strangulation even with a struggle.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

We also can’t just make assumptions or to state opinion as fact. Earlier Fishy stated that Chapman’s killer was on Annie’s right as he mutilated her. He stated this as if it was a fact.

I dont believe i did state that as a fact herlock , i was trying, and will show in my opinion the killer was not on Annie left hand side when he cut her throat while she was on the ground .

But you somehow managed tho balls that up as usual

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not everybody understands the logic behind drawing inferences from evidence, and so end up confusing their hypothesis either for proof or for evidence. So, when we have things like Richardson's testimony that he was at the market, combined with independent verification he was there via Mr. Pearlman, those are real bits of evidence that place Richardson elsewhere at the time of the noise.

The Baron argues, essentially, that Richardson must have left work, returned to #29, stole the rings and bumped the fence, and returned to work. The Baron also argues that Annie was already dead at this point in time as he argues she was killed at 4:30 or earlier. But since Richardson checked the yard at 4:50, Richardson could know Annie was there. Presumably he then decides that it might be worth checking the body for valuables (clearly, he's not thinking it would be a good idea to report the body in the backyard of his mother's house since he doesn't do that even in The Baron's suggestion).

What Richardson couldn't know, of course, is whether or not her body had been discovered since he left the first time. So he sneaks away from work, undetected, steals the rings, bumps the fence, and returns to work, also unnoticed, and then goes on with his day until told by Pearman about the body. He then returns to the scene, possibly with blood on him now as he's been taking rings of a bloodied corpse, etc, and brings police attention to himself by talking with the PC at the scene.

That, I think, seems to be what The Baron's hypothesis must be.

The alternative is, Richardson checked the cellar door at 4:50, did not see a body, went to work as per usual, was told about the body being found, returned to his mother's house, and reported to the police that there was no body when he checked the yard at 4:50, providing further details of his actions on subsequent occasions that do not change that basic statement.

While the evidence we have does fit both of those suggestions, the former explanation involves a lot of activities (Richardson leaving and returning to work, but not being noticed, for example), which exist only in the sense they are not impossible, despite being highly improbable. When two explanations both can explain the evidence, one weighs the relative probabilities, and rejects as conjecture those which are relatively highly improbable. The Baron's implied set of events (I admit, I'm having to infer what exactly he thinks must have happened, but it seems it must be something pretty close to what I've sketched out above) are far more improbable than the alternative, and generally accepted, view.

That means, in order to be seriously considered as an alternative explanation, The Baron has to show that his suggestion is, in fact, more probable then it currently stands. But that can only be done through the supplying of new evidence, in particular evidence that becomes difficult for the accepted view to explain. New evidence that can easily be explained by both does little to change the relative probabilities, new evidence the accepted view cannot explain would result in a rejection of the accepted view. or a modification of it, such that it now starts to become the more complicated and improbable account.

. It's how new evidence can end up changing our view. And this is what I meant when I indicated the onus is on The Baron to supply that evidence because his alternative explanation is far too complicated to be considered a viable option, and it is therefore rejected on that basis. Should new evidence be introduced, then the relative probabilities may shift.

- Jeff

I couldn’t have put it better Jeff. This is exactly the issue with many interpretations imo. I keep hearing “well can you say it’s impossible” or simply “it’s not impossible.” This is why I couldn’t resist my bit of sarcasm about Amelia Richardson and Fred Abberline in rabbit costumes. Saying that something isn’t impossible is just an example of reaching for the lowest hanging fruit. There’s so much that we cannot know for certain. And so all that’s left to do is weigh up what we have. We can’t just drop in a few ‘certainties’ to make the pieces fit. We can postulate as long as it isn’t straining believability beyond breaking point. For example, it’s ‘not impossible’ that both Long and Cadosch could have been 7 or 8 minutes out in their timing. This would make their timings match up with each other. Now this isn’t bending the facts to fit because a) I’m only stating it as a reasonable possibility and not a certainty, and b) the times cannot be considered as facts. They are approximations. They might have been exactly correct or they might have been a few minutes out. Without watches or clocks this is simply a fact.

We also can’t just make assumptions or to state opinion as fact. Earlier Fishy stated that Chapman’s killer was on Annie’s right as he mutilated her. He stated this as if it was a fact. We have nothing to go on here to even point us in that direction. We can’t view any aspect of the case objectively in this way. Another piece of poor logic concerns Cadosch. Now we know that he felt that the ‘no’ came from number 29 but he was honest enough to say that he could have been mistaken. He was cautious in other words. When it came to the sound against the fence though, he was certain. What kind of logic is it that says that because he was uncertain/cautious about the ‘no’ then that makes him an unreliable witness and that we should dismiss his statement that he heard a noise against the fence? In what world does this approach logic?

That is how evidence drives theories, and helps to advance our understanding

Exactly, but for me it’s an unavoidable conclusion that there is a lot of evidence being cherry-picked to suit a theory going on in some quarters. The disappointing thing is that some cannot see the irony of laymen trying to tell the world’s Forensic authorities that they’ve simply gotten it wrong in all of their textbooks and in all of their papers. How can the case be discussed reasonably when the rules of logic, reason and even common sense are ejected as surplus to requirements?

[John G]

This from Dr Biggs: " Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood fron even very catastrophic injuries." (Marriott, 2013.) This may explain the lack of arterial spray in, say, the Stride case.

[John G]

Circulatory system is basically a closed system under pressure.

Pressure does go down when the pump stops.

Wouldn't a severe neck injury be likely to result in cardiac arrest, whereby the heart stops pumping?

[Errata]

This would be after he rendered her unconscious due to strangling her , is that correct ?

Right after she said ''no'' is this also correct ?

And they were between the steps and the fence and there was no sign of a struggle ? correct?

Just want to make sure we agree on this .

At the moment I’m entertaining the notion that he knocked her senseless. I don’t think he choked her. I think she would have fought that. I think they her standing where her feet were in the yard, and he knocked her senseless and lowered her down behind the stairs, The other side of the stairs being blocked by the entrance to the basement. I’m sure there’s any number of issues with the notion, but trying to cut her around stairs was a solveable issue, even if it meant he had to mind his elbows for a minute.

[JeffHamm]

It’s a brick wall of poor logic Jeff.

Not everybody understands the logic behind drawing inferences from evidence, and so end up confusing their hypothesis either for proof or for evidence. So, when we have things like Richardson's testimony that he was at the market, combined with independent verification he was there via Mr. Pearlman, those are real bits of evidence that place Richardson elsewhere at the time of the noise.

The Baron argues, essentially, that Richardson must have left work, returned to #29, stole the rings and bumped the fence, and returned to work. The Baron also argues that Annie was already dead at this point in time as he argues she was killed at 4:30 or earlier. But since Richardson checked the yard at 4:50, Richardson could know Annie was there. Presumably he then decides that it might be worth checking the body for valuables (clearly, he's not thinking it would be a good idea to report the body in the backyard of his mother's house since he doesn't do that even in The Baron's suggestion).

What Richardson couldn't know, of course, is whether or not her body had been discovered since he left the first time. So he sneaks away from work, undetected, steals the rings, bumps the fence, and returns to work, also unnoticed, and then goes on with his day until told by Pearman about the body. He then returns to the scene, possibly with blood on him now as he's been taking rings of a bloodied corpse, etc, and brings police attention to himself by talking with the PC at the scene.

That, I think, seems to be what The Baron's hypothesis must be.

The alternative is, Richardson checked the cellar door at 4:50, did not see a body, went to work as per usual, was told about the body being found, returned to his mother's house, and reported to the police that there was no body when he checked the yard at 4:50, providing further details of his actions on subsequent occasions that do not change that basic statement.

While the evidence we have does fit both of those suggestions, the former explanation involves a lot of activities (Richardson leaving and returning to work, but not being noticed, for example), which exist only in the sense they are not impossible, despite being highly improbable. When two explanations both can explain the evidence, one weighs the relative probabilities, and rejects as conjecture those which are relatively highly improbable. The Baron's implied set of events (I admit, I'm having to infer what exactly he thinks must have happened, but it seems it must be something pretty close to what I've sketched out above) are far more improbable than the alternative, and generally accepted, view.

That means, in order to be seriously considered as an alternative explanation, The Baron has to show that his suggestion is, in fact, more probable then it currently stands. But that can only be done through the supplying of new evidence, in particular evidence that becomes difficult for the accepted view to explain. New evidence that can easily be explained by both does little to change the relative probabilities, new evidence the accepted view cannot explain would result in a rejection of the accepted view. or a modification of it, such that it now starts to become the more complicated and improbable account.

That is how evidence drives theories, and helps to advance our understanding. It's how new evidence can end up changing our view. And this is what I meant when I indicated the onus is on The Baron to supply that evidence because his alternative explanation is far too complicated to be considered a viable option, and it is therefore rejected on that basis. Should new evidence be introduced, then the relative probabilities may shift.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Circulatory system is basically a closed system under pressure.

Pressure does go down when the pump stops.

[John G]

Still under pressure for quite a while.

I accept that the heart can still beat for a short while post mortem, but wouldn't this be at a much lower rate, resulting in negligible blood pressure?

[DJA]

Still under pressure for quite a while.

[John G]

The autopsy on Stride's heart is evidence of death by strangling.

Regarding Chapman,was her throat cut after death.

We have various ideas on how long that takes.

Okay, fair points. Of course, the issue I was getting at is that the heart stops beating upon death therefore, in such circumstances, you wouldn't get arterial spray, i.e because blood is no longer being pumped around the body under pressure.

[Abby Normal]

Hi board, I took off my index finger in a horrific if avoidable accident. The arterial spray was nothing short of Impressive, ruining several pairs of bowling shoes.

good lord-so sorry-hope your OK now? don't tell me you stuck your hand in the automatic ball return?!